3 ms·

I knew about the smaller 2x4s, but now I have a sudden irrational anger that the 2x2s are not also smaller... How 2x4s depreciate according to Twin Peaks: [0].

by Cro_on 6y ago

I knew about the smaller 2x4s, but now I have a sudden irrational anger that the 2x2s are not also smaller... How 2x4s depreciate according to Twin Peaks: [0]. It appears in the US they start out at 2x4 and are trimmed down to make them look more finished. [0]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=txPcLOtbG3s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=txPcLOtbG3s EDIT to ask if OP means 'bigger' rather than 'smaller'?

sokoloff 6y ago
I meant smaller. A US nominal 2x2 piece of framing lumber is 1.5” x 1.5” (for the same reason a 2x4 is 1.5” x 3.5”) If you still want to have anger, you can take solace that 2 1x2s do stack up to be (very close to) a 2x2, but 2 2x2s do not make a 2x4. https://www.archtoolbox.com/materials-systems/wood-plastic-composites/dimensional-lumber-sizes-nominal-vs-actual.html https://www.archtoolbox.com/materials-systems/wood-plastic-c...
- frosted-flakes 6y ago
  Actually, 2x2s are often or usually 1⅜" x 1⅜", which is rather annoying at times. I'm not sure if that has always been the case, but these days they're mostly only available in finger-joint spruce/fir/pine (presumably from offcuts of larger sizes), which might have something to do with it. (Unlike solid 2x2s, which tend to twist and warp so much as to be completely useless, finger-joint 2x2s are super stable, and always come dead straight.)
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Is there a sane explanation for why 2 = 1.375?
    - frosted-flakes 6y ago
      Just a guess, but it's probably because the finger-joint boards are made from short offcuts from the manufacture of larger boards like 2x4s joined together with long zigzag joints. Saw kerfs and finishing sanding probably account for the ⅛" difference in size. It's usually not a problem, except when it's used beside a 2x4 on the flat, in which case the 2x4 needs to be thinned down on the table saw.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - formerly_proven 6y ago
      Lumber mills used to separate sawing and milling, so the roughsawn 2"x4" might have been about that (+-5 mm or so), but if you mill that square and (relatively) flat you're loosing a bunch of material. The milled lumber probably still got called 2"x4" since it was made from that. And then things shifted to milled lumber only, and the dimension change stuck.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Mills cut 2x4 to whatever size close to that then machined it to dimension. Some did a final dimension of 2x4 exactly (within tolerance), others did other sizes. Once you started building something you had to buy everything from the same mill. In some areas this wasn't possible as the yard you bought from changed suppliers. Eventually they decided enough and standardized on the current size. The standard is more important than the actual size.
maxerickson 6y ago
I'm curious how the difference came about. It seems likely enough that a standard was written and then processes improved to the point where essentially everything was at the small end of acceptable. But maybe it is just the drying and trimming.

by Cro_on 6y ago

sokoloff 6y ago

I meant smaller. A US nominal 2x2 piece of framing lumber is 1.5” x 1.5” (for the same reason a 2x4 is 1.5” x 3.5”) If you still want to have anger, you can take solace that 2 1x2s do stack up to be (very close to) a 2x2, but 2 2x2s do not make a 2x4. https://www.archtoolbox.com/materials-systems/wood-plastic-composites/dimensional-lumber-sizes-nominal-vs-actual.html https://www.archtoolbox.com/materials-systems/wood-plastic-c...

frosted-flakes 6y ago
Actually, 2x2s are often or usually 1⅜" x 1⅜", which is rather annoying at times. I'm not sure if that has always been the case, but these days they're mostly only available in finger-joint spruce/fir/pine (presumably from offcuts of larger sizes), which might have something to do with it. (Unlike solid 2x2s, which tend to twist and warp so much as to be completely useless, finger-joint 2x2s are super stable, and always come dead straight.)
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Is there a sane explanation for why 2 = 1.375?
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    Just a guess, but it's probably because the finger-joint boards are made from short offcuts from the manufacture of larger boards like 2x4s joined together with long zigzag joints. Saw kerfs and finishing sanding probably account for the ⅛" difference in size. It's usually not a problem, except when it's used beside a 2x4 on the flat, in which case the 2x4 needs to be thinned down on the table saw.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    Lumber mills used to separate sawing and milling, so the roughsawn 2"x4" might have been about that (+-5 mm or so), but if you mill that square and (relatively) flat you're loosing a bunch of material. The milled lumber probably still got called 2"x4" since it was made from that. And then things shifted to milled lumber only, and the dimension change stuck.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Mills cut 2x4 to whatever size close to that then machined it to dimension. Some did a final dimension of 2x4 exactly (within tolerance), others did other sizes. Once you started building something you had to buy everything from the same mill. In some areas this wasn't possible as the yard you bought from changed suppliers. Eventually they decided enough and standardized on the current size. The standard is more important than the actual size.

maxerickson 6y ago

I'm curious how the difference came about. It seems likely enough that a standard was written and then processes improved to the point where essentially everything was at the small end of acceptable. But maybe it is just the drying and trimming.